There were those that did not believe the bill of rights should have been written, but not because they thought those right enumerated should ever be restricted, but because they felt that enumerating some would put other rights open to question and regulation that should not have been regulated. The debate was not over should these rights be less strongly protected (strict scrutiny) but should they enumerate any lest other rights be trampled that also should have protection.

I took you to be referring to the 9th Amendment, which says,

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I was talking about the 10th. The 10th says in essence that anything the government doesn’t have a charter to do within the constitution is outside the power of the federal government; i.e., “Those powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the states and the people.” What that clearly means is that the federal government is violating the bill of rights if they do anything that are not delegated to the United States. Can anyone say “Department of Education”?

None of the bill of rights are less that strict scrutiny. Even if a future court decides otherwise, the bill of rights was put in place because it those rights were so fundamental that the founding fathers wanted to place them beyond any restrictions of law.

There were those that did not believe the bill of rights should have been written, but not because they thought those right enumerated should ever be restricted, but because they felt that enumerating some would put other rights open to question and regulation that should not have been regulated. The debate was not over should these rights be less strongly protected (strict scrutiny) but should they enumerate any lest other rights be trampled that also should have protection. Ultimately, the 10th was used to limit the power of government (not that it has done any good) so all rights would be protected.

There are three standards of judicial review applied to rights:

- Strict scrutiny is the most stringent and applies to the First and Fourth Amendments.

- Intermediate scrutiny is met if a regulation involves important governmental interests that are furthered by substantially related means. It is used most for “Title IX” regulations.

- Rational Basis Review, the least stringent, is applied by asking whether the governmental action at issue is a rational means to an end that may be legitimately pursued by government.

By using the phrase “reasonable regulation” in its platform documents, the DNC is indicating that it (and thus, the people in the Party) believe that the Second Amendment protection is subject to the lowest level of scrutiny, which is really no protection at all.

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

That is on page one, prior to anything within the longer majority opinion (it is the “held” section on page one of the decision). While Miller stated, but Heller being the later, and more relevant to personal defense (Miller did not address that at all) Heller would supersede Miller in the case of prohibiting firearms for self-defense or the defense of the family.

Although the external case specs are the same, the military brass tends to be thinker than civilian (saves the civilian manufacturers money) and tend to be “hotter” (ditto).

As long as the bullet weight is at least 130 grains, the cartridge used is not as important as good shot placement in making a clean kill. Magnum cartridges are not needed for moose.

I cannot find it now, but I read one story of a Moose hunter in Maine who unloaded his Marlin .45-70 into a Moose at 100 yds. The beast just stood there as the hunter fired, and then wandered off into the marsh. So the guy figured he had missed, and something was wrong with his rifle. Still, he searched the place where the moose had been standing, and shortly found a blood-trail. He followed the trail a hundred yards or so, and the moose was quite dead. All four shots had hit the lungs! Any one would have killed the moose, but they just don’t die quickly.

Allow me to quote the relevant passage in UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939):

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ’shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

The Second Amendment protects our right to own MILITARY WEAPONS, not personal defense or hunting weapons. Thus, a ban on .22 LR rifles and pistols, .700 H&H Nitro Express Rifles, and other weapons used primarily for hunting would be constitutional, bans on select-fire weapons such as the M-16, M-14, and M-60 are not.

That is what REALLY scares the leftists — between the Heller decision’s saying the people have an INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms, and the Miller decision’s saying that the Second Amendment protects our right to have MILITARY firearms, they are really frightened.

Don’t worry about a ban on hunting weapons, either. An M-16 is a great varmint rifle, and the M-1 and M-14 are fantastic deer rifles.